Is the future Atheist?

[tyranim]

..... i dont get it.......?

[Ant-n-ero]

..... i dont get it.......?

lol same - he just made no sense to me at all >_<

[SeddyRocky]

it didn't really. So deleted . Back to the serious subject.

[johannhowitzer]

in the future, christianity will probably become the greek mythology of the future.

Clocking in over two millennia and that still isn't the case.  We're in a situation now where both sides have some substantial points to make, in my experience many Christians these days aren't operating on blind faith, but rather "informed faith."

History is a pendulum.  Thought in Europe, for example, went through alternating periods of emphasis on emotion or reason as the ultimate.  I'm a musician, and looking back through the ages, composers have somewhat alternated between "mannerism" (highly technical music designed to show off a performer's virtuosity) and holding emotionally expressive music up as the end-all.  We went from the Classical period to the Romantic/Impressionist, then back to technicality in the 20th Century and the dawn of atonalism.

The masses don't know history, so they repeat this cycle (and others like it) endlessly.  I don't think Christianity is seeing a trend toward its death, but our era is very much one of science and facts and technicalities (there are of course exceptions to this), and I expect we'll see a swing in the other direction eventually.

[Ant-n-ero]

not totally relevant to the discussion - but there is more evidence/proof/ whatever you want to call it - that Jesus was alive actually did what was written - than there is that julias caesar (spelling?) existed....

[falconbane]

Clocking in over two millennia and that still isn't the case.  We're in a situation now where both sides have some substantial points to make, in my experience many Christians these days aren't operating on blind faith, but rather "informed faith."

It took over four millenium (could be alot more, but then it become controversial so using a safe number xP) to overcome Animism or its derivative Polythesim.  Give it some more time.  The problem with a lot of Christians (mainly Catholic and US-based) concerning "informed faith" is that it is the church that's feeding them the information.  How long did it take for scientists-scholars to prove the world was round?  And then that the world isn't geo-centric?  Even in recent time, how long did it take to prove that Rock and Roll is not the music of devil (you can argue that it IS the music of the devil, but the argument that the christian god IS the devil would be just as valid). 

A major, major problem is that most religions does not advance.  On one hand, we have science that amends itself whenever it's proven wrong, on the other, we have religions that designate fixed time to fixed location to listen to someone read some the same book(s) every time.  That's one of the main/many reason(s) Agnostics/Atheists/FSMs are growing in numbers.

As for the time about Jesus, there's the Constantintine Declarations (or whatever it was called).  But even if it's discovered, it will take a long time for it to be released, just look at the dead sea scrolls 

[SeddyRocky]

"A major, major problem is that most religions does not advance. "

Well, that depends on how you see it. Christianity (largest religion in the world) has divided itself many times just for the purpose of advancement. Then agian, once divided these branches rarely advance much on their own...

[johannhowitzer]

The problem with a lot of Christians (mainly Catholic and US-based) concerning "informed faith" is that it is the church that's feeding them the information.

Actually, most Christians I meet these days have a much firmer stand upon empirical evidence than you'd find even a decade ago - by this I mean Protestant Christians, though.  Catholicism still has major sheltering issues.  Both in person and in cyberspace, I've seen some surprisingly two-sided discussions of the facts.

[falconbane]

There are of course different groups with different acceptance of science, some are just more receptive than others.  But I believe you do know what I'm trying to say. 

When was the last time did the church or "information" released by their religious groups was allowed to be independently verified?  Even on stuff as simple as contraceptive became a huge issue with some denominations (I could be wrong since I don't know every church, I should ask "how often" instead xD).

Tolerance differs widely between states (with the exception of the bible belt), even cities.  I have a classmate who moved here from the states because of "religious bullying" since her family questioned their church (although, being in the south and doing that isn't a good idea :S). 

[johannhowitzer]

Where is "here"?

It would be really hard to find an example of an "objective" verification of anything any church has ever said.  The main problem, at least from what I can see, is that you have a pretty sharp dichotomy in the body of people who would be qualified to do such a verification.  On the one hand you have the Christian scientists, archaeologists, etc. who would be regarded as not objective.  On the other you have atheists/agnostics and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of the church's claims would be almost a foregone conclusion.

Bottom line, it's hard to find objectivity these days.  (Was it ever easy?)

I have no respect for leaders who cannot accept scrutiny, religious or otherwise.  Think we're getting a little off-topic though, this is supposed to be about whether belief in God is going to eventually disappear. 

[SeddyRocky]

Christianity, Islam and Judaism together form quite a large percentage of the worlds poulation. So I don't think that God-faith is going anywhere soon. But who knows, in the future...

johannhowitzer: Since we as humans are not objective, it woudl require some kind of meta-device to find true objectivity. Which would have to be man-made, thus spoiling the purpose...

[falconbane]

"Here" being the country north of the states (or the so called 51 states, the evil empire of socialize medicine, harperkistan, etc...   ).


"On the other you have atheists/agnostics and others who are so embedded in the opposite conclusions that their examination of the church's claims would be almost a foregone conclusion." 

For the love of FSM/Bob/Rod/Todd/Deuce/Jebus/God/Bubba/Allah/Nothing, don't mix agnostics with atheists together.  It just shows your ignorance :\

Objectivity is hard indeed, but a group of agnostics is more trustworthy than any of the two extremes since they will accept data and evidence as opposed to a statement just claiming "There isn't a God/There isn't a God/There is more than 1 God".